CHUNG MING YU AND OTHERS v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER

CHUNG MING YU AND OTHERS v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER

The court held the disputed re-amendments were inconsistent with the plaintiffs' pleaded primary case and unnecessary for fairly disposing of the matter and therefore correctly disallowed; the biblical-reference and Concern Group pleas and corresponding parts of witness statements were inadmissible and irrelevant to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHUNG MING YU AND OTHERS v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Appellants/plaintiffs: 1st to 12th plaintiffs; Respondents/defendants: 1st and 2nd defendants
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 November 2017
Case Number
HCA785/2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Orders (rehearing Before Deputy High Court Judge in Chambers)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Striking Out Pleadings, Striking Out Witness Statements, Justification Defence, Fair Comment, Qualified Privilege (reynolds), Amendment of Pleadings, Appeal From Master
Source Language
en
Defamation Civil Procedure Evidence Costs Striking Out Pleadings Striking Out Witness Statements Justification Defence Fair Comment +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1st to 12th plaintiffs

Appellants/plaintiffs

1st and 2nd defendants

Respondents/defendants

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Orders (rehearing Before Deputy High Court Judge in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs should be granted leave to re-amend parts of the Amended Reply to equate 'the Church' with 'the Group'
  2. 2 Whether discrete paragraphs of the Amended Reply concerning biblical references and the Concern Group disclose no reasonable cause of action or are scandalous, irrelevant or an abuse of process and should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether parts of plaintiffs' supplemental witness statements contain inadmissible evidence and should be expunged

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the disputed re-amendments were inconsistent with the plaintiffs' pleaded primary case and unnecessary for fairly disposing of the matter and therefore correctly disallowed; the biblical-reference and Concern Group pleas and corresponding parts of witness statements were inadmissible and irrelevant to the natural and ordinary meaning of the words or to defendants' pleaded defences (justification, fair comment, Reynolds) and thus rightly struck out; plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed and consequential directions and costs orders were made.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to file and serve Re-Amended Reply pursuant to paragraphs 1-2 of the Master Order within 14 days
  • Paragraphs 2-3 of the Master order dated 12 May 2016 remain in force